Page 1 of 1

New theory on collapse of Twin Towers

Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2011 12:27 pm
by dicktater
New theory on collapse of Twin Towers...

Were Twin Towers felled by chemical blasts? (Update)
September 21, 2011 by Marlowe Hood
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-the ... owers.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Image
Smoke billows up after the first of the two towers of the World Trade Center
collapses in 2001 in New York City. A mix of sprinkling system water and melted
aluminium from aircraft hulls likely triggered the explosions that felled New York's
Twin Towers on September 11, 2001, a materials expert has told a technology
conference.


A mix of sprinkling system water and melted aluminium from aircraft hulls likely triggered the explosions that felled New York's Twin Towers on September 11, 2001, a materials expert has told a technology conference.

"If my theory is correct, tonnes of aluminium ran down through the towers, where the smelt came into contact with a few hundred litres of water," Christian Simensen, a scientist at SINTEF, an independent technology research institute based in Norway, said in a statement released Wednesday.

"From other disasters and experiments carried out by the aluminium industry, we know that reactions of this sort lead to violent explosions."

The official report blames the collapse on the over-heating and failure of the structural steel beams at the core of the buildings, an explanation Simensen rejects.

Given the quantities of the molten metal involved, the blasts would have been powerful enough to blow out an entire section of each building, he said.

This, in turn, would lead to the top section of each tower to fall down on the sections below.

The sheer weight of the top floors would be enough to crush the lower part of the building like a house of card, he said.

The aluminium-water scenario would also account for explosions from within the buildings just prior to their collapse that have fuelled conspiracy theories suggesting that the structures had been booby-trapped.

Simensen presented his theory at an international materials technology conference in San Diego, California, and has detailed his calculations in an article published in the trade journal Aluminium International Today.

"The aluminium industry had reported more than 250 aluminium-water explosions since 1980," he said.

In a controlled experiment carried out by Alcoa Aluminium, 20 kilos (44 pounds) of molten aluminium was allowed to react with 20 litres of water, along with a small quantity of rust.

"The explosion destroyed the entire laboratory and left a crater 30 metres (100 feet) in diameter," Simensen said.


By comparison, the aircraft carried 30 tonnes of aluminium into each of the towers, according to his calculations.

Simensen speculates that the two commercial jets were immediately trapped inside an insulating layer of building debris within the skyscrapers.

The debris -- especially plaster, which blocks the transfer of heat -- would have formed a shield protecting the rest of the building.

At the same time, however, it would created a super-hot, oven-like zone around the aircraft, heated by burning fuel.
Yep. So hot, that Edna Cintron wasn't melted or vaporized.

Image
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICL ... woman.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Aluminium alloy, which in jet hulls also contains magnesium, melts at 660 degrees Celsius (1,220 degrees Fahrenheit). If heated to 750 C (1382 F), the alloy "becomes as liquid as water," Simensen said.

This molten aluminium could then have flowed downward through staircases and gaps in the floor, causing a chemical reaction with water from sprinklers on the levels below.

A meltdown period of 30 to 45 minutes would be consistent with the timing of the explosions and subsequent collapse of both buildings in relation to the moment of impact.

Simensen said there are lessons to be learned, if his theory is correct, that could help avoid a similar disaster were another skyscraper to be hit by a big jet.

"We could develop means of rapidly emptying sprinkler systems in the floors beneath the point of impact," he said.

Firing a rocket with fire-retardant that could coat the aircraft body could also help prevent metal alloy from melting.

Re: New theory on collapse of Twin Towers

Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2011 1:06 pm
by PlutoCharon
:lol:

Occam's razor, the simplest explanation is most likely the correct one

What caused the towers to collapse? Explosives. What kind of explosives? The explosive kind that's what

We have here yet another complex explanation that supports the OS and defies rationality. Hopefully it doesn't spread to the mainstream but it probably will

WTC2, hit on angle, plane misses core and stairwell, portions exit through the other side before being engulfed in explosion, the majority of the jet fuel does not ignite and spills to the streets below. Core rigged to explode, proof is the explosions and flames reported by eyewitnesses in the center lobby and stairwell that the OS claims is burning jet fuel (LOL). Oh and the basement bombs. That's probably what happened, no complex explanation required. Although the OS does require a complex explanation if it is to be believed.

Re: New theory on collapse of Twin Towers

Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2011 12:57 am
by dicktater
Yoohoo Nooze headlie spin: :lol: :lol: :lol:

New Twin Tower Collapse Model Could Squash 9/11 Conspiracies
http://news.yahoo.com/twin-tower-collap ... ache=clear" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Bldg. 7?
Relies on pancake collapse?
Evenly distributed aluminum caused straight-down destruction?
squibs?
pre-impact, subterranean explosions?

Christian Simensen, scientist at SINTEF.
The letters in his name can be re-arranged to spell:
"shit, man's insincere"

Re: New theory on collapse of Twin Towers

Posted: Sun Sep 25, 2011 5:34 pm
by Ry
riiiight and all the aluminum decided to wait and all fall at once into waiting water. and was so violent it threw the beams into adjacent buildings. and knocked down a building that didn't even have a plane hit it.

Re: New theory on collapse of Twin Towers

Posted: Sun Sep 25, 2011 5:50 pm
by juice
Looks like the official story has their own Judy Wood!

The main version of this story on AOL mentioned AE911 in the final paragraph. The story was an awesome inside job.

Re: New theory on collapse of Twin Towers

Posted: Sun Sep 25, 2011 5:53 pm
by Int'l man of mystery
The fact that they are even coming up with new explanations, is further proof that they have no proof as well as the fact that the 9/11 Commission Report isn't as accurate and solid as they like to pretend it is.

Re: New theory on collapse of Twin Towers

Posted: Sun Sep 25, 2011 8:23 pm
by Lemek
I still don't know why our government didn't just say that Al Caddy planted the demolition charges. Other than, I suppose, that would have undermined the suicide attack theme.

Re: New theory on collapse of Twin Towers

Posted: Sun Sep 25, 2011 8:27 pm
by Ry
because then they would have to investigate how they got into the towers and that would lead back to Israel

Re: New theory on collapse of Twin Towers

Posted: Tue Sep 27, 2011 7:33 am
by dicktater
Government Twists Science of 9/11 – Just As With Iraq, the Gulf Oil Spill and Fukushima

To Promote Its Policy Objectives
Washington’s Blog
Sept 27, 2011
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/09/ ... shima.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Governments Sometimes Twists Science to Promote Policy Objectives

Anyone who paid any attention to the claims of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, the Gulf oil spill or the Fukushima nuclear accident knows that the government often twists science to promote certain policy objectives, such as drumming up support for the invasion of Iraq or becoming a booster for nuclear power and big oil (and thus downplaying the damage from nuclear accidents and oil spills).

President’s National Medal of Science winner Lynn Margulis notes that the scientific method is to follow the facts where they lead, to adopt the theory which has the most proof, and to discard theories which are contradicted by the facts.

Margulis says that – in the case of 9/11 – the government has adopted theories which are backed by very little evidence, and refused to look at the most likely theory – the one backed by overwhelming evidence.

New Theory on Towers’ Collapse

(Long article) Read more:
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/09/ ... shima.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Re: New theory on collapse of Twin Towers

Posted: Tue Sep 27, 2011 10:20 am
by georgesmiley
what a relief

finally it all makes sense :lol: